Jump to content

The Yard at Ivanhoe | Mixed-Use [Under Construction]


orlandoguy

Recommended Posts

  • 503 Brookhaven Dr is their property south of Virginia, across from the primary property. Is this in addition to the previous plans, or just the business address used by developer?  The 174 units mentioned in this filing is close to the 172 units described as phase 2, but that's on the north end of the property, so the Brookhaven address isn't a fit.
Edited by cwetteland
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I guess my spidey sense was tingling...

 

Case Number:MPL2015-00033
Primary Address:503 BROOKHAVEN DR
Project Name:THE YARD - CROSSMAN SITE
Master Number:MPL2015-00033
Case Description:Master Plan application for 174-unit multi-family and commercial/office development. (See CUP2015-00014, GMP2015-00049 and ZON2015-00048).
Status:REV
Application Date:10/19/2015

That looks like a new project. It is a master plan application and The Yard already has theirs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Not sure that this exact look would fit into the CBD, but I do wish CBD developers would put this kind of meticulous care to ensure a perfect "fit."  

WRT Ivanhoe Village, both of these Yard developments go beyond anything I could hope far as fit is concerned.  I especially like how the new development literally embraces The Hideaway. Even the name Hideaway fits its new context. They are surrounding the HIdeaway parking with palm trees which should make the Dolphin fans happy. The proof will be how the Artist Studio on the south side and The Venue are realized. 

I do think something along these lines would have been much better at Mills Park and would be perfect for the Princeton.

Edited by cwetteland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a point, a project of this size doesn't fit in the CBD, being a large apartment complex it would be a great fit in North Quarter, specifically this last large site yet to be developed. I've been wondering, is there anything planned here? Garland/Orange/Marks empty lot:

Garland_Orange_Site.thumb.JPG.d42168f514

 

Despite a lot of negative backlash (Facebook) against The Yard's new proposal, I do like the density and the design is better thought out than most other projects of this size. I just wish the design could have been broken into smaller yet still tall buildings instead of a large single mass of a building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a point, a project of this size doesn't fit in the CBD, being a large apartment complex it would be a great fit in North Quarter, specifically this last large site yet to be developed. I've been wondering, is there anything planned here? Garland/Orange/Marks empty lot:

Garland_Orange_Site.thumb.JPG.d42168f514

 

I had assumed that FDOT owned it like they do a ton of those lots next to I-4 as part of Ultimate... but I was only partially right.  It's actually 3 lots.  FDOT owns the tiny piece on the bottom left, the other two are owned by generic LLCs both based out of the same Miami area office.  Wouldn't surprise me to see an annoucement in a couple years.  I'd expect they'll wait until most of the I-4 construction is done and see if FDOT wants to sell that piece of land back.

northquarterlot.PNG

Edited by AndyPok1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure that this exact look would fit into the CBD, but I do wish CBD developers would put this kind of meticulous care to ensure a perfect "fit."  

WRT Ivanhoe Village, both of these Yard developments go beyond anything I could hope far as fit is concerned.  I especially like how the new development literally embraces The Hideaway. Even the name Hideaway fits its new context. They are surrounding the HIdeaway parking with palm trees which should make the Dolphin fans happy. The proof will be how the Artist Studio on the south side and The Venue are realized. 

I do think something along these lines would have been much better at Mills Park and would be perfect for the Princeton.

Where is this WRT Ivanhoe Village you speak of? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

I'm not talking about its size; never mentioned that.

But I am talking about the industrial look incorporating brick etc.  How does that not fit in with the CBD yet stucco does?  That sure fits in more than a mix of stucco and in some cases bright colors, such at The Sevens, Crescent, NORA, Lexington Court, CityView, Lincoln at Delaney, Residence Inn (hotel, I know), Cheney Place, etc, etc, etc.  Camden is the only similar type project with a brick facade other than some stuff from circa 2000 along Central.

And when I say brick I don't mean all of the historic buildings downtown; I'm talking about newer projects.

The point is that these newer low rise projects haven't been adding to the character of downtown, but a style ala The Ivanhoe would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

Like you, kind sir, I feel no affinity towards stucco.  It should be banished to the suburbs, and even then, given a wide berth.  My comments with respect to the Yard look within the CBD (a look I truly adore) had to do with the following. 

The Yard look harkens to an earlier time (in a good way).  It reminds me of New England textile mills repurposed.  I never thought that you were suggesting building mid-rises in the CBD and that’s the issue.  That look only works with mid-rise and lower.  It would’ve been a welcomed alternative to Mills Park, and many projects in the Uptown/Midtown areas, not to mention the hideous Princeton.  But this look is out of place in areas where heights are exceeding mid-rise.  There were no high-rise textile mills. And since real brick could not structurally support a high rise, faux brick should not purport to do so.

I don’t necessarily have a style in mind for the CBD (and it certainly wouldn’t be stucco).  I am attracted to the CNL/City Hall look but those are offices and I don’t know how it would translate to residential units.  I’m also not a big fan of glass for residential purposes but a stone and glass mix might just be the thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 And since real brick could not structurally support a high rise, faux brick should not purport to do so.

I don’t necessarily have a style in mind for the CBD (and it certainly wouldn’t be stucco).  I am attracted to the CNL/City Hall look but those are offices and I don’t know how it would translate to residential units.  I’m also not a big fan of glass for residential purposes but a stone and glass mix might just be the thing.

 

 

Is not the red brick Angebilt technically a high rise?

There are a lot of old high rise buildings from the early 20th century in cities across the country that have brick exteriors, but of course, the brick is used as a veneer, placed over the outside of concrete block.

But I'm with you on the stucco thing. It's been way overused around here and I hate it with a passion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks AndyPok1 regarding the info about the Garland lot.

Stucco isn't necessarily bad when used correctly and in moderation. The Italians do stucco right, but it appears we often can't. I guess the overabundance of it in the suburbs is what turns off people. I agree that The Yard shouldn't make use of it, the materiality of the area doesn't really work well with stucco.

I'm more opposed to using straight up glass and steel only, but this is a critique reserved for the first floor of buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

All explanations aside, I feel like things have to be spelled out on these boards sometimes, i.e.a simple statement has to be extrapolated just to get the core point across.  When I said size, I'm talking about the fact that it is a low rise project regardless of the number of blocks it takes up.

I'll try it again: If you're gonna build a low-rise in the CBD, like developers have over the past couple of decades, and if the choices are the look of Cheney Place, Lincoln at Delaney, Crescent Central, and CityView, versus The Yard at Ivanhoe's style, go with The Yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

All explanations aside, I feel like things have to be spelled out on these boards sometimes, i.e.a simple statement has to be extrapolated just to get the core point across.  When I said size, I'm talking about the fact that it is a low rise project regardless of the number of blocks it takes up.

I'll try it again: If you're gonna build a low-rise in the CBD, like developers have over the past couple of decades, and if the choices are the look of Cheney Place, Lincoln at Delaney, Crescent Central, and CityView, versus The Yard at Ivanhoe's style, go with The Yard.

I concur 100% on those projects and projects going forward, but only south of the 408, west of I-4 and north of Amelia. They should all look to the Yard for inspiration.  Lucerne seems to be on the right track. That leaves east of Rosalind. IMO, the amount of development already there in other styles renders the Yard style somewhat out of place.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This really is the best looking project to come along in years.  I like the colonnades -- it rains here.  All new developments should incorporate colonnades.

I think back to when Thornton Park Central was built and the excitement and energy it first brought to the neighborhood.  I see this in a similar way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.